9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship deed was signed on his behalf by Motichand, who was also a partner in the firm. The assessment year in question is 1961-62 for which the corresponding previous year is S.Y. 2016 (accounting period ended on October 28, 1960). On September 12, 1960, an application for registration of the reconstituted firm was filed. This application was signed by all the partners, except Abhaykumar and the minor. On behalf of Abhaykumar, Motichand had signed the application as the person holding his general power of attorney. When the application for registration came up for hearing some time in the year 1965, this defect in the application came to the notice of the assessee-firm. Thereupon, on August 23, 1965, a fresh application was submitted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grant registration. This order of the ITO was confirmed in appeal by the AAC and in the second appeal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal pointed out that the defect in the original application was not a minor one and as the proper application signed by all the partners was filed only in the year 1965, the initial application, though defective, cannot be regarded as having been rectified with retrospective effect. It also declined to condone the delay on the ground that ignorance of law is no ground for excusing the delay. The Tribunal, accordingly, confirmed the orders Of the taxing authorities refusing to grant registration to the firm. In this reference, the following question has been referred to us for our determination : " Whether, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are to be strictly complied with and any omission on the part of the assessee-firm to comply with the said provisions may justify the taxing authorities to refuse to grant registration. Further, under r. 2, so far as this firm was concerned, the application for registration was required to be made before the end of the previous year. The previous year ended on October 28, 1960, and the application for registration, which was made on September 12, 1960, did not comply with the provisions of r. 2. A proper application signed by all the partners, as required by r. 2 was made only on August 23, 1965.Since it was not presented within the time permitted by r. 2, it was required to be rejected, unless the delay was condoned on a sufficient cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
